50 Dead in Kentucky Tornadoes...

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 10:02:12 PM UTC-4, dean...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 1:50:07 PM UTC-6, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:55:49 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/21 11:11, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 15-Dec-21 9:04 pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/21 07:42, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Dec-21 1:01 am, Rick C wrote:
50 dead and it may rise to 100. Yet KY is seeing 60 deaths every
day from Covid and the count is on the rise again. KY only has a
53% fully vaccinated rate. I suppose they don\'t fear a deadly
disease.

So it stands to reason they don\'t fear tornadoes much either. I
wonder if they have anything in their building code that requires
protection from tornadoes? Most likely too many people demand
their freedom from intrusive building codes.


I saw that some people were praying to God outside their destroyed
church.

Were they praying for a miracle or because there had been a miracle?

Well, I suppose they could have been thanking God for finally showing
very clearly that he doesn\'t give a stuff about them, so that in
future they can stop with the whole praying thing, and use their time
for something they actually like doing.

But probably not.

It is easy to imagine other possibilities, e.g. they were
thanking God for destroying the evil heretics from another
denomination. Ditto Godless people in general.
Gee, you atheist folks are so compassionate. How about, they love God
and love their church, and are praying for His aid and comfort in their
distress?
Hmmm... Seems like you don\'t understand that it was God who created that distress, no? Or was it the devil? Or maybe Flip Wilson?

Just like when watching a lot of sci-fi movies, to believe in God requires a very large dose of \"willing suspension of disbelief\". That is to say, you must turn off scientific thought. The two are irrevocably incompatible.

Combine that with the total lack of unequivocal evidence of the existence of God and it is much easier to suspend belief in god.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
If you\'re interested:
https://www.gotquestions.org/search.php?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=proof+of+god%5C

That link pretty well sucks. No sign of intelligent life here.

And Jesus?
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Yeah, not much better.

These pages would get an \'F\' in any logic class.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/12/21 22:39, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:50:43 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/21 13:55, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/21 11:11, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 15-Dec-21 9:04 pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/21 07:42, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Dec-21 1:01 am, Rick C wrote:
50 dead and it may rise to 100.  Yet KY is seeing 60 deaths every
day from Covid and the count is on the rise again.  KY only has a
53% fully vaccinated rate.  I suppose they don\'t fear a deadly
disease.

So it stands to reason they don\'t fear tornadoes much either.  I
wonder if they have anything in their building code that requires
protection from tornadoes?  Most likely too many people demand
their freedom from intrusive building codes.


I saw that some people were praying to God outside their destroyed
church.

Were they praying for a miracle or because there had been a miracle?

Well, I suppose they could have been thanking God for finally
showing very clearly that he doesn\'t give a stuff about them, so
that in future they can stop with the whole praying thing, and use
their time for something they actually like doing.

But probably not.

It is easy to imagine other possibilities, e.g. they were
thanking God for destroying the evil heretics from another
denomination. Ditto Godless people in general.

Gee, you atheist folks are so compassionate.  How about, they love God
and love their church, and are praying for His aid and comfort in
their distress?

Er - no. I think such any behaviour is reprehensible.

I\'m just reporting what some religious people actually do
to other groups, in the name of their religion. For examples,
see history books and newspapers.

Are you proposing to take responsibility for all the evil done by
atheists? Such as the Holocaust, Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, Uighur
genocide....

Because, being such a rational guy, you\'d obviously see the logic of
your position.


But an omnipotent God could have prevented them being in
distress in the first place.

And a merciful God is very patient even with His enemies.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

As a practical matter, Christians are more peaceful, more productive,
and more charitable than nons.

But maybe God might be a little more patient with His friends?

Remind me... how many billion dollars has the catholic
church in the US been forced to give its victims as
compensation? (As if there could be be any meaningful
form of compensation for what they did).

 

[David Brown]

On 15/12/2021 23:39, John Larkin wrote:

As a practical matter, Christians are more peaceful, more productive,
and more charitable than nons.

But maybe God might be a little more patient with His friends?

Are you basing that on anything factual, or merely wishful thinking?

The percentage of people who call themselves \"Christian\" who actually
follow the main teachings of Jesus, as given in the Gospels, is /tiny/.
\"Love God\" ? They may go to church on Sundays, but that\'s not
impressive dedication. \"Love thy neighbour\" ? That doesn\'t mean
chatting over the garden fence or helping out at a school fundraiser.
\"Love your enemies\" ? Not a chance. \"Turn the other cheek\" ? Only
while you are reloading.

In the USA, there is a strong correlation between being violent, angry,
ignorant, bigoted, gun-loving, conspiracy-theorist and identifying as
strongly \"Christian\".

Being religious certainly does not make a person violent, greedy or
evil. But being religious can give such people an excuse - it makes
them think that what they are doing and how they are acting is \"right\"
because they are doing what their god wants (based on whatever
interpretation or misinterpretation they have made themselves or been
fed by others).

It is a little like being drunk. Alcohol does not make people violent,
angry or unpleasant - it reduces the inhibitions of people that were
already violent and unpleasant, so that they cannot repress those
aspects of themselves.

Basically, people use religion as an excuse not to think, not to make
their own decisions and take responsibility for themselves. But it does
not really change the kind of person you are - for better or for worse.

 

[David Brown]

On 16/12/2021 01:53, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 15/12/21 22:50, David Brown wrote:
On 15/12/2021 21:50, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

Er - no. I think such any behaviour is reprehensible.

I\'m just reporting what some religious people actually do
to other groups, in the name of their religion. For examples,
see history books and newspapers.

Are you proposing to take responsibility for all the evil done by
atheists?  Such as the Holocaust, Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, Uighur
genocide....

Because, being such a rational guy, you\'d obviously see the logic of
your position.

Religious people want to ascribe everything good to
their omnipotent God, and everything bad to something/body
else. That\'s willful blindness and/or hypocrisy.

It is something we all do - though our \"god\" may vary. As rational and
logical people, we must constantly be aware of this effect, which is a
variation of \"confirmation bias\". Some alternatives are clearly as
irrational as any religious gods, such as wearing your lucky socks for
an exam. But even the most Spock-like of us will do the same thing
regarding political parties, countries, education, friends and family.

Hitler referred to himself as a Christian (for the most part), as did
most Nazis.  Regardless, /people/ are responsible for the evil acts they
commit, not religions, gods or lack thereof.  Religion is merely a
popular excuse for many acts of evil, and it is a tool used by evil
people to control others.  It is entirely clear that neither religion
nor belief in any god or other supernatural idea, nor lack of such
beliefs, gives any guarantees of someone being either a good or a bad
person.

Precisely. Mensch is mensch.


No one is suggesting that religious people, simply by following a
particular religion, are directly responsible for any kind of evil act.
  Whatever evil they do themselves, support or condone, is a matter for
the individual.

It becomes less clear when religious authorities condone,
turn a blind eye, or even cover up despicable acts.

A willingness to tolerate evil in order to protect your own position or
organisation, when you could do something about it, is also evil. You
might think that exposing things would be worse overall, however -
people in power are always faced with \"lesser of two evils\" decisions
and they are never easy. Remember, when we hear about these things it
is usually from the outside, with only partial information, with
hindsight, and viewed with the morals and standards of today rather than
of the time of the event. (That doesn\'t mean any given cover-up was a
good or excusable thing - merely that reality is complicated.)

You get the same thing in any organisation - political parties are a
fine example, but it applies to companies, schools, sports clubs, and
pretty much any organisation. Mensch is mensch, and religions are not
special here.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/12/21 08:08, David Brown wrote:

On 16/12/2021 01:53, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/21 22:50, David Brown wrote:
On 15/12/2021 21:50, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

Er - no. I think such any behaviour is reprehensible.

I\'m just reporting what some religious people actually do
to other groups, in the name of their religion. For examples,
see history books and newspapers.

Are you proposing to take responsibility for all the evil done by
atheists?  Such as the Holocaust, Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, Uighur
genocide....

Because, being such a rational guy, you\'d obviously see the logic of
your position.

Religious people want to ascribe everything good to
their omnipotent God, and everything bad to something/body
else. That\'s willful blindness and/or hypocrisy.


It is something we all do - though our \"god\" may vary. As rational and
logical people, we must constantly be aware of this effect, which is a
variation of \"confirmation bias\". Some alternatives are clearly as
irrational as any religious gods, such as wearing your lucky socks for
an exam. But even the most Spock-like of us will do the same thing
regarding political parties, countries, education, friends and family.


Hitler referred to himself as a Christian (for the most part), as did
most Nazis.  Regardless, /people/ are responsible for the evil acts they
commit, not religions, gods or lack thereof.  Religion is merely a
popular excuse for many acts of evil, and it is a tool used by evil
people to control others.  It is entirely clear that neither religion
nor belief in any god or other supernatural idea, nor lack of such
beliefs, gives any guarantees of someone being either a good or a bad
person.

Precisely. Mensch is mensch.


No one is suggesting that religious people, simply by following a
particular religion, are directly responsible for any kind of evil act.
  Whatever evil they do themselves, support or condone, is a matter for
the individual.

It becomes less clear when religious authorities condone,
turn a blind eye, or even cover up despicable acts.


A willingness to tolerate evil in order to protect your own position or
organisation, when you could do something about it, is also evil.

That\'s something the Catholic church has done, and is
being severely financially penalised in the US.

The CofE has a similar problem, but perhaps not to the
same extent.

Given their behaviour, /neither/ has any moral authority
to assert what is bad behaviour in others.

You
might think that exposing things would be worse overall, however -
people in power are always faced with \"lesser of two evils\" decisions
and they are never easy. Remember, when we hear about these things it
is usually from the outside, with only partial information, with
hindsight, and viewed with the morals and standards of today rather than
of the time of the event. (That doesn\'t mean any given cover-up was a
good or excusable thing - merely that reality is complicated.)

The \"partial information\" issue is real, but even taking that
into account the Catholic church and CofE are delinquent.

You get the same thing in any organisation - political parties are a
fine example, but it applies to companies, schools, sports clubs, and
pretty much any organisation. Mensch is mensch, and religions are not
special here.

Just so.

I expect all other religious organisations have similar problems, whether or not
they are recognised.

 

[David Brown]

On 16/12/2021 11:33, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 16/12/21 08:08, David Brown wrote:
On 16/12/2021 01:53, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/21 22:50, David Brown wrote:


No one is suggesting that religious people, simply by following a
particular religion, are directly responsible for any kind of evil act.
   Whatever evil they do themselves, support or condone, is a matter
for
the individual.

It becomes less clear when religious authorities condone,
turn a blind eye, or even cover up despicable acts.


A willingness to tolerate evil in order to protect your own position or
organisation, when you could do something about it, is also evil. 

That\'s something the Catholic church has done, and is
being severely  financially penalised in the US.

Yes, and in other countries - and other organisations too.

The CofE has a similar problem, but perhaps not to the
same extent.

Given their behaviour, /neither/ has any moral authority
to assert what is bad behaviour in others.

No church or religion has moral authority over anyone who is not a
member of that church or religion. But some religious groups /think/
they have moral authority over others.

You
might think that exposing things would be worse overall, however -
people in power are always faced with \"lesser of two evils\" decisions
and they are never easy.  Remember, when we hear about these things it
is usually from the outside, with only partial information, with
hindsight, and viewed with the morals and standards of today rather than
of the time of the event.  (That doesn\'t mean any given cover-up was a
good or excusable thing - merely that reality is complicated.)

The \"partial information\" issue is real, but even taking that
into account the Catholic church and CofE are delinquent.


You get the same thing in any organisation - political parties are a
fine example, but it applies to companies, schools, sports clubs, and
pretty much any organisation.  Mensch is mensch, and religions are not
special here.

Just so.

I expect all other religious organisations have similar problems,
whether or not they are recognised.

/Every/ organisation of a certain size has its bad apples. You should
not blame the entire organisation or all its members for the misdeeds of
certain members. But you /should/ expect the organisation to deal
appropriately with those bad members, rather than covering things up.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/12/21 12:56, David Brown wrote:

On 16/12/2021 11:33, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 16/12/21 08:08, David Brown wrote:
On 16/12/2021 01:53, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/21 22:50, David Brown wrote:


No one is suggesting that religious people, simply by following a
particular religion, are directly responsible for any kind of evil act.
   Whatever evil they do themselves, support or condone, is a matter
for
the individual.

It becomes less clear when religious authorities condone,
turn a blind eye, or even cover up despicable acts.


A willingness to tolerate evil in order to protect your own position or
organisation, when you could do something about it, is also evil.

That\'s something the Catholic church has done, and is
being severely  financially penalised in the US.


Yes, and in other countries - and other organisations too.

The CofE has a similar problem, but perhaps not to the
same extent.

Given their behaviour, /neither/ has any moral authority
to assert what is bad behaviour in others.


No church or religion has moral authority over anyone who is not a
member of that church or religion. But some religious groups /think/
they have moral authority over others.

Indeed.

But in those circumstances I\'d term it immoral authority
over their adherents.

You
might think that exposing things would be worse overall, however -
people in power are always faced with \"lesser of two evils\" decisions
and they are never easy.  Remember, when we hear about these things it
is usually from the outside, with only partial information, with
hindsight, and viewed with the morals and standards of today rather than
of the time of the event.  (That doesn\'t mean any given cover-up was a
good or excusable thing - merely that reality is complicated.)

The \"partial information\" issue is real, but even taking that
into account the Catholic church and CofE are delinquent.


You get the same thing in any organisation - political parties are a
fine example, but it applies to companies, schools, sports clubs, and
pretty much any organisation.  Mensch is mensch, and religions are not
special here.

Just so.

I expect all other religious organisations have similar problems,
whether or not they are recognised.


/Every/ organisation of a certain size has its bad apples. You should
not blame the entire organisation or all its members for the misdeeds of
certain members. But you /should/ expect the organisation to deal
appropriately with those bad members, rather than covering things up.

Precisely.

As with engineering, how things fail is at least as important
as how they work.

Churches (etc) perform as badly as commercial and political
organisations.

 

[Robert Latest]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:
I\'m just reporting what some religious people actually do to other groups,
in the name of their religion. For examples, see history books and
newspapers.

Are you proposing to take responsibility for all the evil done by atheists?
Such as the Holocaust, Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, Uighur genocide....

You do understand the difference betwen \"in the name of\" and \"by\"?

Because, being such a rational guy, you\'d obviously see the logic of
your position.

He does. You don\'t.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:57:49 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 15/12/2021 23:39, John Larkin wrote:

As a practical matter, Christians are more peaceful, more productive,
and more charitable than nons.

But maybe God might be a little more patient with His friends?

Are you basing that on anything factual, or merely wishful thinking?

Duh! This is \"I don\'t need no proof\" Larkin!

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Mike Coon]

In article <spfeib$djr$2@dont-email.me>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
says...

As with engineering, how things fail is at least as important
as how they work.

Churches (etc) perform as badly as commercial and political
organisations.

Now we are potentially in the realm of amusing oxymorons like:
business ethics
military intelligence
feminine logic
moral authority?
etc

 

[server]

Mike Coon <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com> wrote in
news:MPG.3c259110befa9a67989683@usenet.plus.net:

In article <spfeib$djr$2@dont-email.me>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
says...
As with engineering, how things fail is at least as important
as how they work.

Churches (etc) perform as badly as commercial and political
organisations.

Now we are potentially in the realm of amusing oxymorons like:
business ethics
military intelligence
feminine logic
moral authority?
etc

Or retarded criminal fucks like Paul Rand.